![]() |
|
|||||||
| Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
Impact Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 783
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 50
Posts: 2,631
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
Quote:
those runs on 1st and 2nd down may have meant something if Ladell was more than a backup, and T.J. was more than straight ahead battering ram. Ladell and T.J. are absolutely NOTHING SPECIAL. they run into space in front of them, but neither see the field laterally to find their own holes or make anyone coming from the side miss. you know who does see the field surprisingly well (besides Portis of course)? SELLERS. that guy has a genuine knack man, he can sense the field! that screen pass last night and those carries in preseason - not to mention all the TD passes last year - really show his awareness of the field. unlike Ladell and T.J, he actually moves his feet to avoid guys not directly in front of him. and unlike Ladell at least, when Sellers has to put his head down and hit somebody, he actually moves that somebody.
__________________
a fan. not a cheerleader. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Germantown, Md.
Posts: 4,832
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
All of us here, as well as personell people around the league felt at the time the addition of Al Saunders was the greatest plus for the team this offseason. Things are definately not going good at the moment and when this happens we start looking at everything a little more critically, and begin pointing to area's we think gives us the quickest fix. Right now there is no quick fix for this team because the problems we're experiencing are multiple, and if we're looking for someone to blame it can be spread throughout the entire team. I beleive eventually we will work our way out of this funk we're in and render out doubts unfounded. We all witnessed blame tonight, but I'm hoping we'll play our way out of it despite how hard it is to be optomistic at this point in time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
MVP
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,460
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
Quote:
Longtime, with the highest payroll in the NFL and the highest paid coaching staff in the NFL, yes sir, you must start to point some fingers. There is no time to play out this funk. There is no time to hope Brunell comes around in Jacksonville. The troops have to rallied tomorrow morning. Changes must be iminent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Impact Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 783
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
MVP
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,460
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
But here's the thing Beemnseven, if we see the same thing if Gibbs was still calling the plays, why bring in Saunders?? That was the point, he was supposedly a genius at perhaps covering diffeciencies.
I tried my best to reserve my judgement about the Al Saunders signing. In fact, I showed very little enthuiasm about it. I just wanted to wait and see. Well, under Gibbs last year...Moss had a record year, Portis had a record year, uhhh umm, Brunell had a record year! I thought at best the offensive was one or maybe two players away from taking us to the next level. I thought Gibbs play calling needed some tweaking but not overhauling...seems like it's a case of one step forward and two steps back. Honestly, unless Saunders somehow turns this offense into a thirty point a game machine, someone please, please tell me why in the hell did we bring him here?? It's not like he won any Super Bowls at KC!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Germantown, Md.
Posts: 4,832
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
It's easy to point fingers when times are tough, it's to be expected. We all know we're struggling, we all think we know what the problems are but I'm more interested in listening to solutions as opposed to constantly pointing out the problems. We are not going to fire everybody, bench and/or replace everybody so we have to play the game with what we have. I don't see anything wrong that winning won't cure. I can go back through these post a few months and the very same people that had us in the SB are now singing a different tune now that we've lost a couple games. No more SB's now, it' fire everybody, it's truly amazing ho quickly things can change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Swearinger
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,626
|
Well, you're only as good as your offensive line (see teams like the Raiders and the Texans). And tonight we didn't block anyone. Brunell was on his butt the whole game (he needs to sit regardless). Plus, we couldn't get a pass rush to save our lives. What's that, 2 sacks total in 2 games against two immobile, old quarterbacks?? What happens when we play Philly and Atlanta? Bottom line, we're not getting it done up front on either side of the ball. Blache and Bugel need to get on those guys in a big way.
On a side note, how nice was it to see my man Sean Taylor laying the lumber on T.O.?? The man hits like a truck. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Germantown, Md.
Posts: 4,832
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
Quote:
WELCOME!!!! GMScud, I like your name. I agree with your observation about the OL. That along with others are included in the breakdowns that are preventing us from winning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Impact Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaVale MD
Age: 64
Posts: 515
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
After last night, I've drawn the following conclusions which I'm sure many others here have reached as well. Aside from the new offense, I feel pretty confident that:
1) CP is a key part of the offensive plan and players like Betts and Duckett are nowhere near being an acceptible substitute. 2) The offensive line, despite being the same bunch of guys we had last year are proving to be extremely porous on pass blocking and ineffective on run blocking. God forbid if we begin suffering injuries to the O-line, knowing that our back-ups are less skilled than our starters. 3) I'm disappointed that the offense appears to be nothing more than a 2 receiver offense, much like last year. Last year it seemed that most throws were going to Moss and Cooley. Now it seems that most throws are going to Moss and Betts (or whoever the RB is at the time). ARE is getting a few looks and Lloyd seems to get almost none. I doubt that it is because they are not getting open. I think it is more likely the result of observation #2 or Brunell not being able to go through his progressions efficiently. 4) While I'll reserve final judgment, I suspect that Brunell no longer has the physical ability to perform in this offensive scheme. He was better last year because most of the time, all he had to do was hand off to Portis and toss a couple of jokes around in the huddle. While it's still a little early, it appears he's just not getting this new offense.
__________________
...skins fan since 72 and still breathin'! |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
^21^
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Age: 54
Posts: 1,630
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
Looked like he was studying pretty hard during the game.
hmmmmmm. NO TDs by the offense...
__________________
^21^ |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
MVP
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,460
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
If we think the Texans will be pushovers, we have another thing coming. Unfortunately for us, they will be as desperate for a win as any team we've faced so far through three games.
They actually held their own against Philly until the caved in and handed them the game. I expect a very competive game from them. If we make the mistake of chalking this one up like we did against Minnesota, surely we'll be 0-3. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 49
Posts: 3,007
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
i predicted a slow start on the offensive side of the ball, so i'm not that surprised... but i didn't think it would be this slow. i know blaming the new system is cliche, but some of that can't be understated. not being able to block up front, the backs not picking up their blocks correctly, the wideouts and qb not being on the same page, cooley not sure what his role in this offense is- this all leads to basic breakdowns that shouldn't happen in pro football.
when a player learns something new, he isn't yet reacting instinctively on the field- he's still mentally going through steps before and during the play instead of automating. that's why you may see wideouts breaking a few yards short on a pass play designed to pick up 8. a guard may totally whiff on fundamental blocking because he hesitated for a split second before remembering his assignment. apply that to an entire unit and you see what happens. having said all that, i still think everyone on the offensive side of the ball could have contributed a lot more than what was shown tonight. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Mr. Brightside
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leesburg, VA
Age: 40
Posts: 4,453
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
in hindsight it looks like so far saunders was too big of a transition, maybe gibbs should have still called plays with saunders adding some input and not totally changing the scheme
__________________
"I don't care what nobody say I'm a be me, stay hood stay real, cause I'm out here grindin'" -Joe Gibbs
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Special Teams
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Killeen, TX
Age: 50
Posts: 360
|
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
I think of a Suanders offense, and I see the importance of two good backs (Portis and Duckett) a strong TE (Cooley) a strong offensive line and capable WRs, which over the years in KC, nobody can really name any of them. It should have been the perfect fit. I think it all starts with the threat of a running game though, and that opens up the middle of the field for Cooley then the outside of the field for the WRs. We've got to get Portis back.
I'm glad Saunders is here for the long term. We've got options when Gibbs is ready to go with him and GW. I personally wish we could have added a vet QB in case Brunell looked like he did at the end of last year (which he does) and a Ty Law type DB and kept moving, but I think the new offense without Portis and the Springs injury is what's hurting us the most.
__________________
Redskins fan lost in Texas for 20 years. Need a ride to D.C. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|